[Serusers] problem with version: ser 0.8.12-1rc6 (i386/linux) + rtpproxy

ser die serdiehard at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 5 12:37:16 CEST 2004


hello friends 

in nat its not working 

i have downloaded the stable cvs version of ser

and rtp proxy of 

[root at server rtpproxy]# ./rtpproxy -v
20040107

and my ser.cfg file looks like this 

*******************************************************

debug=8                 # debug level 
fork=yes
log_stderror=yes        # (cmd line: -E)

check_via=no    # (cmd. line: -v)
dns=no           # (cmd. line: -r)
rev_dns=no      # (cmd. line: -R)
port=5060
children=4
fifo="/tmp/ser_fifo"

# ------------------ module loading 

loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/sl.so"
loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/tm.so"
loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/rr.so"
loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/maxfwd.so"
loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/usrloc.so"
loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/registrar.so"
loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/textops.so"

# !! Nathelper
loadmodule "/usr/local/lib/ser/modules/nathelper.so"

# ----------------- setting module-specific parameters

# -- usrloc params --

modparam("usrloc", "db_mode",   0)

# -- rr params --
# add value to ;lr param to make some broken UAs happy
modparam("rr", "enable_full_lr", 1)

# !! Nathelper
modparam("registrar", "nat_flag", 6)
modparam("nathelper", "natping_interval", 30) 
modparam("nathelper", "ping_nated_only", 1)   

# -------------------------  request routing logic 
# main routing logic

route{

        # initial sanity checks -- messages with
        # max_forwards==0, or excessively long
requests
        if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) {
                sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops");
                break;
        };
        if (msg:len >=  max_len ) {
                sl_send_reply("513", "Message too
big");
                break;
        };

        # !! Nathelper
        # Special handling for NATed clients; first,
NAT test is
        # executed: it looks for via!=received and
RFC1918 addresses
        # in Contact (may fail if line-folding is
used); also,
        # the received test should, if completed,
should check all
        # vias for rpesence of received
        if (nat_uac_test("3")) {
                # Allow RR-ed requests, as these may
indicate that
                # a NAT-enabled proxy takes care of
it; unless it is
                # a REGISTER

                if (method == "REGISTER" || !
search("^Record-Route:")) {
                    log("LOG: Someone trying to
register from private IP, rewriting\n");

                    # This will work only for user
agents that support symmetric
                    # communication. We tested quite
many of them and majority is
                    # smart enough to be symmetric. In
some phones it takes a configuration
                    # option. With Cisco 7960, it is
called NAT_Enable=Yes, with kphone it is
                    # called "symmetric media" and
"symmetric signalling".

                    fix_nated_contact(); # Rewrite
contact with source IP of signalling
                    if (method == "INVITE") {
                        fix_nated_sdp("1"); # Add
direction=active to SDP
                    };
                    force_rport(); # Add rport
parameter to topmost Via
                    setflag(6);    # Mark as NATed
                };
        };

        # we record-route all messages -- to make sure
that
        # subsequent messages will go through our
proxy; that's
        # particularly good if upstream and downstream
entities
        # use different transport protocol
        if (!method=="REGISTER") record_route();

        # subsequent messages withing a dialog should
take the
        # path determined by record-routing
        if (loose_route()) {
                # mark routing logic in request
                append_hf("P-hint: rr-enforced\r\n");
                route(1);
                break;
        };

        if (!uri==myself) {
                # mark routing logic in request
                append_hf("P-hint: outbound\r\n");
                route(1);
                break;
        };

        # if the request is for other domain use
UsrLoc
        # (in case, it does not work, use the
following command
        # with proper names and addresses in it)
        if (uri==myself) {

                if (method=="REGISTER") {
                       save("location");
                        break;
                };

                lookup("aliases");
                if (!uri==myself) {
                        append_hf("P-hint: outbound
alias\r\n");
                        route(1);
                        break;
                };

                # native SIP destinations are handled
using our USRLOC DB
                if (!lookup("location")) {
                        sl_send_reply("404", "Not
Found");
                        break;
                };
        };
        append_hf("P-hint: usrloc applied\r\n");
        route(1);
}

route[1]
{
        # !! Nathelper
        if
(uri=~"[@:](192\.168\.|10\.|172\.(1[6-9]|2[0-9]|3[0-1])\.)"
&& !search("^Route:")){
            sl_send_reply("479", "We don't forward to
private IP addresses");
            break;
        };

        # if client or server know to be behind a NAT,
enable relay
        if (isflagset(6)) {
            force_rtp_proxy();
        };

        # NAT processing of replies; apply to all
transactions (for example,
        # re-INVITEs from public to private UA are
hard to identify as
        # NATed at the moment of request processing);
look at replies
        t_on_reply("1");

        # send it out now; use stateful forwarding as
it works reliably
        # even for UDP2TCP
        if (!t_relay()) {
                sl_reply_error();
        };
}

# !! Nathelper
onreply_route[1] {
    # NATed transaction ?
    if (isflagset(6) && status =~ "(183)|2[0-9][0-9]")
{
        fix_nated_contact();
        force_rtp_proxy();
    # otherwise, is it a transaction behind a NAT and
we did not
    # know at time of request processing ? (RFC1918
contacts)
    } else if (nat_uac_test("1")) {
        fix_nated_contact();
    };
}


*******************************************************


and in ethereal report i found this

******************************************************
[root at server root]# tethereal -r test1.eth
tethereal: Symbol `pcap_version' has different size in
shared object, consider re-linking
1   0.000000 202.65.*.* -> 202.65.*.* UDP Source port:
5001  Destination port: 5060[Malformed Packet]
  2   4.084851 202.65.*.* -> 202.65.*.* SIP/SDP
Request: INVITE sip:216110 at 202.65.*.*, with session
description
  3   4.090585 202.65.*.* -> 202.65.*.* SIP Status:
100 trying -- your call is important to us
  4   4.090761 202.65.*.* -> 202.65.*.* SIP/SDP
Request: INVITE sip:216110 at 202.65.*.*:5060, with
session description
  5   4.095809 202.65.*.* -> 202.65.*.* ICMP
Destination unreachable

  26  33.931583 202.65.*.* -> 202.65.*.* SIP Status:
408 Request Timeout
  27  33.952005 202.65.*.* -> 202.65.*.* SIP Request:
ACK sip:216110 at 202.65.*.*

*******************************************************


with regards
rama kanth




		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail




More information about the sr-users mailing list